What am I?

[Wulf]

No, not one of those dumb quizzes (although I am MUCH bigger than a breadbox). I have a problem fitting in to my gaming group, and, being too mean to pay a professional, I wanted some free advice on exactly what's going on in my head. I'm not sure this is the right place to ask, but the terminology came from here, so...

Here's the situation. Our gaming club has in it three groups. All are, generally speaking, Simulationist, as far as you can generalise such a thing. The GM creates a world (or, more realistically, picks up a book and uses a world someone else has created), creates a story, creates scenes within the story. The players create characters, then describe the character's actions and roll the dice. the GM may fudge a few (or a lot) of the rolls to heighten the game, but the stress is certainly on Exploration, Setting and System (in varying orders of importance), and rarely on Character. I haven't seen a clear situation of Narrativism in 20-odd years.

And that's the problem. In 20-odd years I've been a Simulationist. RuneQuest, traveller, GURPS, the lot. And I'm bored with it. game tables depress me. I write up my own fiction about my characters. I devise all sorts of motivations, moral dillemas, plot hooks. But when I try to play Narrativist, I hit a brick wall (players don't respond, GMs don't have a rule for it). When I try to GM Narrativist I get blank stares. Mind you, I've not entirely escaped the Sim mindset, I LIKE realism, and I detest a system that fails a 'reality test'. I just don't want to have to look it up in a table all the time...

But... our group is possibly the oldest, both in terms of establishment (some of us started in 1979) and in player age (I'm **hrumphle*** years old myself...). And we're showing clear signs of game fatigue. Slow play, frequent out-of-game distractions, minimal progress, no excitement. The most animated we've become recently is when playing filler games of ZOMBIES!!! Hero Wars drifted off, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer is lethargic and mechanical (and no, I don't mean the Buffybot). I believe the others need a bit of a shove and encouragement. Hell, they turn up every week, they must want something. Maybe we have a complete group of Casual Gamers? They're my friends, and I'm not walking out on them.

I've tried playing with the other, newer, younger (damn them...) groups, and they're faster, more focussed, more involved... and Powergamers and kill-crazies and rules lawyers. No burnout there, but not my cup of tea.

Now, clearly, that's not enough to go on, but, generally speaking,

HELP ME!

Wulf

[Valamir]

My own gaming goes in cycles Wulf.  I hit the point where you are now about 10 years ago and for most of the last 10 years had pretty much withdrawn from Roleplaying (except for a couple dabbles which confirmed why I didn't do it much any more).

Instead my attention shifted to board games.  Avalon Hill classics like Civilization or Brittania or History of the World which I had always enjoyed were now the main focus of my, and my gaming groups, time.  From there the flood of European-style games really brought excitement back into my gaming.  It got me past the burn out.  I had continued to stay "in" the RPG world as a buyer of games (looking for something that might get me excited) but rarely played.  Then I stumbled on 7th Sea, joined the 7th Sea mailing list, witnessed the departure of JW and followed the development of Orkworld.  Orkworld led me to Gaming Outpost where I discovered a whole bunch of roleplayers talking about roleplaying...and actually sounding like they were having fun.  I eventually migrated most of my time over here to the Forge and for the last couple years have been enjoying roleplaying again (taking time out to crush Seth and his wife beneath the heals of my Samurai in Tenjo, of course).

So, shareing moment aside.  You may just need a breather.  Try spending a few weeks or months (hopefully you won't need years like I did) playing other types of games for a while.

[Wulf]

Hmm... interesting. The other potential Narrativist in the group (with two of us, there was someone to play against at least) just left due to family commitments (two young kids). Now we're boardgaming on irregular nights...Settlers of Catan card game last week, Nomad Gods tomorrow.

But the problem is I don't feel burnt out or lacking motivation, I feel more excited and ready to game than I have the last 10 years or so. There are so many games I want to play. I just have to figure out how to motivate the group (which, I agree, may mean a break or change in gaming). Specifically, I want them motivated for HeroQuest in March...

Wulf

[greyorm]

Specifically, I want them motivated for HeroQuest in March...

Have you talked to them about this?

That is, physically stood up and said, "Hey everyone, in March we're going to play Hero Wars. I'm really excited about playing it, but I want you to be, too, or I don't see a reason to play. So what excites you about Hero Wars?"

That specific question, phrased just that way is the lynchpin...you don't want to ask it any other way, because it should get them thinking (they'll naturally want to provide an answer) and it doesn't provide an easy "out."

Of course, this doesn't work if you haven't mentioned to them before that you'd like to play Hero Wars (or the above comes off as we're GOING to play Hero Wars -- nyah!). So if you haven't, drop it into conversation, "I think I'd like to try Hero Wars sometime." And leave the book out for them to flip through during/before/after other sessions.

However, the thing is if one of them answers, "Nothing." Then ask them what they think would be exciting? If they give you blank looks after that, your group has a lot of talking to do about the activity of role-playing itself as a group.

Here's the other thing, if you really want to play all these games, do the "X-games" thing: one new game every month or two. That way there is no pressure to keep playing, or to feel "locked into" something if they don't like it: 3-5 solid sessions, and then you move on. Mention this and be clear about it and the number of sessions.

If they like it, you can keep playing, of course, but the point is to get them to at least try it. Otherwise, to use an analogy, it's like saying, "We're having monkey kidneys for dinner, but I don't know when we'll stop having them for dinner." It's far more palatable to accept it once or twice if you know for certain you aren't trapped into having monkey kidneys every night until whenever (only tonight, tomorrow and then once next week...never again if we don't like them! Yay! But those poor monkeys...).

As well, it may take a while for you and your group to get out of your old habits. I started a 3E D&D game with the intention of having it be some funky Narrativist-style play and it went to crap on me...it took me something more than a year to "get it" and actually start playing Narratively -- so don't beat yourself up OR your players if you don't "get it" immediately.

Just have fun and do what seems fun.

[Paul Czege]

Wulf,

My best recommendation is to run a game of InSpectres. The rules can be taught quickly, and everyone knows and likes the genre. Present it as a light diversion. After a successful run you'll have taken the edge off the blank stares.

One thing you should know though. Narrativism doesn't mean sacrificing realism. Aggressively Sim games try to capture realism mechanically, via system. But invariably, cracks emerge. Narrativism has appeal to a lot of Sim gamers, I think, because they recognize that the human brain is intuitively a much more reliable engine of probability and realism than they've ever experienced from system mechanics.

Paul

[Wulf]

Specifically, I want them motivated for HeroQuest in March...

Have you talked to them about this?

That is, physically stood up and said, "Hey everyone, in March we're going to play Hero Wars. I'm really excited about playing it, but I want you to be, too, or I don't see a reason to play. So what excites you about Hero Wars?"

Actually, we've been playing HW for two years, on and off (mostly on). HeroQUEST motivates me as I'm hoping this time they'll (Issaries, Inc.)get it right (it's the only game I've seen where a rigidly Simulationist setting has ground a free-flowing Narrativist system to submission...). The problem isn't the game as such, it's the style.

I've suggested they create their own HeroQuests that I can detail & write up - great idea! Not one appeared...

I've asked all about their characters, finding motivations and hooks/kickers. Wow, you mean I can get involved? - they look at the sheets and read the numbers.

I've talked to them about the 100-word writeup to create a character. Very interested. Two appeared, both wandered in about 60-70 words, and would have created fewer abilities than the list method. Some of them haven't even NAMED their characters.

I don't think they actually KNOW how to play Narratively, or any other way but Simulationist, they never have. It interests them, but it's too much work, or too different, or just plain scarey. They'll play Hero Wars/HeroQuest, but they'll play it Simulationist.

Here's the other thing, if you really want to play all these games, do the "X-games" thing: one new game every month or two.

We're doing that now. What follows Buffy I'm not sure. If I can get 2-3 players alone, I'll spring Donjon on them...

Wulf

[John Kim]

I don't think they actually KNOW how to play Narratively, or any other way but Simulationist, they never have. It interests them, but it's too much work, or too different, or just plain scarey. They'll play Hero Wars/HeroQuest, but they'll play it Simulationist.  

On the other hand, it may be that they really like Simulationist play.  It certainly sounds like you have made reasonable attempts at introducing Narrativist play and it hasn't seriously interested them.  It seems to me quite possible that you could keep trying one Narrativist game after another at them and keep getting the same results.  

In this case, if you want to keep gaming with them you need to find a compromise or (ideally) hybrid which excites both you and them.  I would look at what does interest them -- especially in terms of source material.  Are they into superheroes, or espionage, or Star Wars, or what?  Then look for what inside of that would interest you.

[Mike Holmes]

Good point, John. Wulf, have you considered looking for another group, one that matches your priorities better?

Mike

[Wulf]

On the other hand, it may be that they really like Simulationist play.  It certainly sounds like you have made reasonable attempts at introducing Narrativist play and it hasn't seriously interested them.  It seems to me quite possible that you could keep trying one Narrativist game after another at them and keep getting the same results.  

I'd be perfectly willing to agree that they prefer Simulationist play, but at the moment,  they haven't got too wonderfully excited about that either. The Narrativist concepts I've discussed have interested them, they've SAID they'd like to try.

In this case, if you want to keep gaming with them you need to find a compromise or (ideally) hybrid which excites both you and them.  I would look at what does interest them -- especially in terms of source material.  Are they into superheroes, or espionage, or Star Wars, or what?  Then look for what inside of that would interest you.

We'll probably try Superheroes (Mutants & Masterminds) soon, we tried Star Wars (OK, but none of us is too sure about writing scenarios). We tend to be a fantasy-oriented group.

I may try Donjon. It's got simulationist mechanics, if you ignore the 'extras'. The idea of a 5-player Donjon game is a bit frightening though...

Wulf

[John Kim]

I'd be perfectly willing to agree that they prefer Simulationist play, but at the moment,  they haven't got too wonderfully excited about that either. The Narrativist concepts I've discussed have interested them, they've SAID they'd like to try.

Fair enough.  Has there been anything in play, however small, that has gotten them excited?  i.e. a particular fight went better than usual, or a certain NPC was popular, etc.  If possible, it is better to look at things which were actually liked in play, rather than things which sound like they might be good.

[Wulf]

Fair enough.  Has there been anything in play, however small, that has gotten them excited?  i.e. a particular fight went better than usual, or a certain NPC was popular, etc.  If possible, it is better to look at things which were actually liked in play, rather than things which sound like they might be good.

Certainly the most fluid 'campaign' we have played through (actually a part of the ongoing Hero Wars campaign) was my adaptation of Mononoke Hime (Princess Mononoke), 'tweaked' to fit into Glorantha.

What I noticed about it was that the player characters were permanently REacting, not initiating action. Provided with suitable stimulus, they all got very inventive and started all sorts of plans, cooperating with each other and NPCs. This, I have taken to mean, shows how they are interested in exploring the setting and their own characters, so long as they don't have to think it up themselves.

Which I think is Setting Exploration Simulationism...

EDIT ADDITION: By the way, I should stress that these plans were almost diceless, excepting some rather heroic action on the part of the normally most reticent player. END EDIT

Anyway, what I would say is that (being uncharitable), if you spoon-feed them plot, they will lap it up. So, the job is, to provide loads of detail, and present it fluidly and in depth... no problem...

Wulf

[John Kim]

Certainly the most fluid 'campaign' we have played through (actually a part of the ongoing Hero Wars campaign) was my adaptation of Mononoke Hime (Princess Mononoke), 'tweaked' to fit into Glorantha.
...
Anyway, what I would say is that (being uncharitable), if you spoon-feed them plot, they will lap it up. So, the job is, to provide loads of detail, and present it fluidly and in depth... no problem...  

OK, here's where the clash of styles comes in.  Offhand, it sounds like the players had a fair bit of fun with this, while you as GM did not.  i.e. You felt like it was a lot of work to provide all the detail and "spoon-feed" them the plot, with not much of what you would consider payoff.  Does that sound right?  

What I would do would be to look at what -- within the things they like -- are there things which you like as well.  Were there times of payoff for you in the Mononoke sub-campaign?  On the other hand, what were the parts you liked the least?

[Wulf]

OK, here's where the clash of styles comes in.  Offhand, it sounds like the players had a fair bit of fun with this, while you as GM did not.  i.e. You felt like it was a lot of work to provide all the detail and "spoon-feed" them the plot, with not much of what you would consider payoff.  Does that sound right?  

Well, in this specific case, it was no work at all. I know the movie so well, all I needed were NPC stats and a few sentences to remind me of the right sequence of details. I had a whale of a time, it was smooth, fluid and focused. But to do it again (and again and again) with original plots would be a challenge (hell, if I could pull it off, I'd be damn proud).

What I would do would be to look at what -- within the things they like -- are there things which you like as well.  Were there times of payoff for you in the Mononoke sub-campaign?  On the other hand, what were the parts you liked the least?

Well, what I like, and what I'd like more of, is character interraction (PC and NPC). Which would mean providing those situations where people are more significant than skills or setting, I guess. I'd like there to be more player-led plot, mind you, but so far that's not forthcoming. I can truly say there was nothing that did NOT work in that campaign (other than a couple of bits where I was losing track of how PC actions could be brought back to the plot). So maybe the predictability of the plot (I'd seen the movie, I knew how it ended) was too great for me.

Food for thought. Thanks.

Wulf

[Bob McNamee]

You're also welcome to come play some sessions with the indie-netgaming  group at Yahoo.

We set up games over the internet. Playing via IRC and E-mail.
We seem to have quite a few GMs playing so we lean a bit toward the Narrativist-side (or at least Directors stance).

We have an ongoing Universalis game, and are just setting up for a game of Cornerstone,which looks to be playable as "as much or little Director stance as you want"  Sim?

It could give you an outlet for play (you may even find you don't like Nar in Play that much after all...or that you like it a Lot!... or you may just like mixing up the Stances of Sim)

[greyorm]

I may try Donjon. It's got simulationist mechanics, if you ignore the 'extras'.

Wulf,

Might I suggest you're not really grasping GNS, and this is affecting your attempts to try things out based on that comprehension?

I'm saying this because of the context of a few terms you've tossed around -- what cinched it is that Donjon is a blatantly Gamist game, and mechanics, while they can influence or support a particular style, are not G,N or S.

Actually, you sound a lot like I did about a year-and-a-half ago when discussing my players, my attempts at Narrativist play and so forth, so I have to wonder if you're doing the same thing I did.

I have a suggestion: let's dump the GNS terms and get down to the Social Interaction level of the group. Without saying anything about style priorities or using any game theory, let's examine what's happening in the group itself physically.

You've stated that you've unsuccessfully tried a couple things to get others in your group to play or approach certain games. In all cases, you report a a lack of response and disinterest.

Let's figure out why that is specifically without using the theory shorthand -- meaning you'll need to do a lot of examination on your own and bring up these problems with your group as individuals directly -- again, without using the theory terminology.

I think this might help clarify the situation both here (for us) and for you.